former Judge Mary Hamm cheatsformer Judge Mary E. Hamm cheater

Thursday, June 28, 2012


Doncha just hate it when you lose a case only to find case law afterward that proves you were exactly right?

The case is LaFaro v. Cahill (App. Div.1 2002) 203 Ariz. 482, 56 P.3d 56.)

It's from the Arizona Court of Appeals. (We are becoming fans of Judge Timmer.)

It is so on point for most bogus petitions for Injunctions against Harassment that you should print it out and take it to court with you. Maybe even pre-file it with a judge somehow to educate him/her on the law.

(But that assumes you have an honest, albeit ignorant, judge who doesn't know the law. Having the law on your side won't change anything if you have a cheating judge, like Judge Mary Hamm.)

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Wow - where is Judge Hamm when you need her?

You probably heard the widely reported story by now of the man who is being threatened with jail for posting comments about his ex-wife on Facebook? As in our blogger's case here, the man's comments were not sent to the subject. The former was merely exercising his First Amendment right and posting his thoughts and opinions about someone on the Internet. In our blogger's case, he expressed his thoughts through private letters to others!

But now a judge is penalizing in the man, as in our blogger's case, for speaking his mind.

Really, the solution here is to repeal state "harassment" laws. They violate the First Amendment right to free speech. This is partially what our blogger's federal lawsuit, Michael's Law, is about.

Here are excerpts from the story:
CINCINNATI (AP) — A man [Mark Bryon] who was threatened with jail time for posting comments about his estranged wife on his personal Facebook page unless he posted daily apologies for a month says the court ruling violates his freedom of speech.

. . . the Cincinnati man and free speech and media experts say it should concern other users of the social networking site.

With hundreds of millions of people using Facebook for communication, Byron said that "if they can do this to me, they can do it to others." [AMEN! They have!]

The idea "that anybody could tell you what to say to your friends on Facebook should be scary to people," said Cincinnati attorney Jill Meyer, who specializes in free speech and media issues.

The ruling is highly unusual and "troubling because it's a court telling someone to say something to — in some regards — his chosen group of friends," said Meyer. She noted that the comments were not directed to Byron's wife, Elizabeth Byron, who was blocked from accessing the page. [That is, it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Forcing a 'confession' if you will, out of someone by threatening them with jail.]

According to the ruling, Byron posted comments on his page in November, saying in part, "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely — all you need to do is say you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away." [Hey Judge Mary Hamm? Remind you of anyone?]

Byron's comments expressed frustration, but they were not threats and he didn't make them to his wife, said Cincinnati attorney Jack Greiner, who also specializes in free speech and media issues.

Greiner said he doesn't think the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, "allows a court to find that someone has harassed or caused a person to suffer mental abuse merely by expressing one's opinion about a court proceeding in a non-threatening way." [BINGO!]

Greiner said that a court compelling speech through a court-written apology raises as many free speech concerns as actions prohibiting free speech.

The ruling says several of Mark Byron's comments were "clearly intended to be mentally abusive, harassing and annoying" to his wife and "generate a negative and venomous response toward her from his Facebook friends." [So what? Even if they were, it's a right we have. This is Thought-Police stuff. And what, you don't think his ex-wife is telling her friends mentally abusive, harassing and annoying things about her husband?]

His comments were "nothing other than free speech communication where he was venting truthful information," Ford said.

We hope they make a federal case out of it. This harassment by women has got to stop.

Free Speech. Use it or lose it.

Saturday, December 24, 2011


So, Mary Hamm hasn't asked our blogger, but here's what it would take to stop our blogger's lawsuit against her. (The suit in presently before the Ninth Circuit on procedural grounds. Should be resuming in February or so.)

Our blogger wrote to a leader in Mary Hamm's church. (Mary Hamm says she's not Mormon. That's hard to believe since she's a BYU grad. It's more likely that she is playing Bill Clinton word games. Mormons are told by their leadership that they are not "Mormons," but rather, they are "Latter-day Saints." Whatever. It will come out in discovery.}

The following list is based on the Mormon official church publication "Gospel Principles." While our blogger does not believe in that publication, since Mary Hamm presumably does, and since some of the points are Biblical, our blogger offers Mary Hamm a chance to repent.

Here is what our blogger wrote:
Therefore, since your sister sinned against me, among other things she needs to:
  • Recognize her Sins. She must be confronted with her sins and stop trying to cover this whole matter up. Really, her Recommend should be revoked until she has asked—and I have forgiven—her sins against me. But her worthiness is for you all to decide.

  • She must feel sorrow for her Sins. She must immediately resign as a judge, just as we expected Judge Hinson to do for his sins. [That's not as harsh for her as it sounds. She was making $100/hr as a pro tem judge before my trial. Your church has an excellent social program. (Which, frankly, puts my brothers to shame.) I'm sure if she's ever in need, your brothers and sisters will take care of her.]

  • But before she resigns, she needs to correct the court record, as below.

  • She must forsake her Sins. Well, that one is between God and her. But she can never be a judge again, to keep her from being tempted. She wasn't going to run after this term anyway.

  • She must confess her sins. She needs to personally apologize to me and to the court. Before she resigns as judge, she needs to make a public entry in the court record telling what she did, that she erred and that she had no evidence to sustain an Injunction against me. She needs to sign a letter I can publish, where she apologizes for slandering (and subsequently libeling) me in court so I can somewhat exonerate my name. (She said I was "frightening" given what I
    believe about the First Amendment. Kinda ironic in light of your Elder Oaks' speech "Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened" during the October 2009 General Conference.)

  • She must make Restitution. As with Harold Fish, there's nothing Judge Hamm can do to clear my good name. My reputation has been permanently scarred from her farce trial against me. But she can make some financial restitution by making a payment to the charity of my choice equal to my costs in time, emotional distress and direct expense in fighting and appealing her sinful ruling.
Judge Arthur Markham, who our blogger doesn't believe is Mormon, likewise must confess his sin for covering up sister Hamm's fraud. ("Un-recusing" himself to deny a Rule 60(c) Motion to dismiss for fraud.)

Our blogger is asking for $100,000 to be directed to a charity of his choice. There's only a week before the end of the tax year. If you act now, you can write off the payment as a tax deduction.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Sheila Polk in harm's way?

Why would Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk put herself, and her husband, in harm's way?

See, she refuses to investigate this matter of tampering with a public record, a class 6 felony in Arizona. (A crime with no statute of limitations. I'm hoping someone will run against Mrs. Polk next year and grant me some justice here.) After I sent her office an information, complete with affidavits from two witnesses who exhaustively examined the court file and saw evidence of tampering (evidence which is still there today!), Mrs. Polk refused to investigate, citing "conflict of interest." (I'll post the letter later.)

[One of the witnesses then wrote to Arizona AG Tom Horne's staff, but the complaint fell on deaf ears.]

See, Judge Mary Hamm would be Mrs. Polk's client. But, as far as I know, Mrs. Polk refuses to forward the matter to another County attorney.

Now, I have a video clip from PBS' Horizon program, where Interim Maricopa County attorney Rick Romley, talking about a similar matter involving judges in Maricopa County says, "Nobody is above the law . . . if there's any question, it should have been shipped out immediately to another County Attorney. That's a pretty basic decision . . . " Even former Arizona General Attorney Terry Goddard agrees. (I have the story somewhere.)

So, at first, I thought I'd include Mrs. Polk in my lawsuit for obstructing justice. But an ACLU acquaintance of mine from a long time ago (thanks, D!) told me County Attorneys can weasel out of prosecution, claiming "prosecutorial discretion." So I never served Mrs. Polk. Nevertheless, she insists on being in the suit, despite my motion to strike her out of it.

See, she's put herself, AND her husband, in the middle of a federal civil right lawsuit. Why would anyone do that? Usually, you do everything you can to get dismissed from a lawsuit, which is exactly what all the other defendants have tried.

I'm thinking Mrs. Polk did it so she can continue to dodge her duty as a criminal prosecutor and continue to claim a conflict of interest and not prosecute Judge Hamm and Clerk Runner. (And maybe the Prescott Court Supervisor, Rolf Eckel?)

I'm also thinking that, when she tries to claim absolute immunity in court, that she has waived that claim because she voluntarily put herself into the suit. Any attorneys want to weight in on that?

The ironic thing is, Mrs. Polk says she takes her oath of office seriously.

I say, "Actions speak louder than words."

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Proposed Amended Complaint

I was so embarrassed by my admittedly inartful initial complaint in this matter, I've pulled it from the blog.

I learned a lot when I made similar mistakes in my first federal rights lawsuit against the Prescott PD. And I learned how to cure my defects. See my complaint against Prescott City Prosecutor, Glenn Savona for example.

So, here are pertinent parts of what I may file if the Ninth Circuit agrees with me that it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Sedwick to not let me amend my initial complaint. (In my first suit, Judge Cambell did let me amend, and even gave me "guidance," as required by the Rules.)

ATTENTION ATTORNEYS: Yavapai County failed to file a timely answer to my complaint. I moved for default judgment. It was granted, but because I failed to list Yavapai Count as a defendant in a count, the judgment was set aside (or whatever the legal term is... I forgot for now). If I'm allowed to amend my complaint, listing Yavapai County as one of the defendants in the count of failure to supervise, it seems to me the County is automatically liable for damages.

If you want in, please leave a comment. It will not be posted.



13. Plaintiff incorporates each and every declaration set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
14. Some brief background as it supplies motive for certain defendants. In November 2008, after finding evidence in the public record of three years of egregious constitutional violations and falsified affidavits by a judge in Yavapai County, compelled by love of God and country to raise a "hue and cry," I filed a complaint of judicial misconduct with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct against a Yavapai County Superior Court judge, (now former) Judge Howard D. Hinson, Jr.
15. I publicized the complaint on a 'blog' on the Internet. I published an infamous "Exhibit 1," a graphic showing Judge Hinson's 60-day Rule Violations at a Glance. Knowing retribution for good deeds is a sad political reality in our country (resulting in the need for federal "Whistle blower" protection), I blogged anonymously during this time.
16. The author of a complaint of judicial misconduct is supposed to be anonymous until such time as the complaint is sustained. Nevertheless, before the Commission had ruled, I received an email on May 12, 2009 from a Yavapai County news reporter who had learned that I authored the complaint. If she knew, others in authority must have known. (Leaks may have come from the Presiding Superior Court judge in Yavapai County who had been a Commission member and/or the Yavapai County Prosecutor, also a member.)
17. On February 26, 2009, a TV reporter ran the Judge Hinson story Statewide on the 10 p.m. News. The Hinson story was echoed on-line Friday by various media outlets. The local Prescott newspaper published a front page story in print on Saturday, February 28, 2009. It is fair to say I made a big stink in Yavapai County which embarrassed the Judiciary there. (Although in fact it was Judge Hinson's actions that were an embarrassment.)
18. As I reside 100 miles away in Maricopa County, I thought I would be free from the typical whistle-blower retribution.
19. As Providence would have it, I was compelled to defend myself in a Yavapai County court shortly after the story broke when a long time friend who was divorcing her husband (Melody Bodine, now known as Melody Thomas-Morgan) filed and served an Injunction Against Harassment against me.
20. In her petition, Mrs. Bodine submitted four supporting: an anonymous letter addressed to a "Miss Thomas-Morgan" (she had not changed her name at that time, and had said she was going to change it "Eells."); a Cease and Desist letter I had sent Mrs. Bodine for spreading false rumors about me regarding the anonymous letter; a private letter I had written to a potential future son-in-law of the family, a young Ryan Shoemaker; and a police report regarding criminal allegations against her husband or me regarding the anonymous letter. When I was served with the Injunction, I was given copies of all these papers, pursuant to law and standard court procedure. Mr. Bodine was present at service and immediately made copies of all the paperwork I received. Since I had not had any contact with Mrs. Bodine since she first filed papers against her husband, I challenged the Injunction in court.
21. I filed many motions before trial. Initially I mailed copies of these to the Plaintiff as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 5(a).
22. Soon thereafter, Judge Markham engaged in ex parte communication with me by having his clerk, Cynthia Runner, call me. Even though Injunction law allows for "legal process" and allows contact that serves a "legitimate purpose," he told me that the Injunction prevented me from sending copies of pleadings to Mrs. Bodine. An entry in the court record documents this call and directive. But this directive violates Rule 5(a) of the ARCP, which is binding on the Justice Courts, per A.R.S. §22-211. Interestingly his directive contradicted an Order from the Superior Court when I appealed the Injunction later. The Superior Court ordered me, correctly, to mail copies of all papers to Mrs. Bodine. I ended up incurring various expenses to have the court mail copies of my pleadings to my adversary to comply with the inferior court's inferior order.
23. Concerned about Judge Markham's preferential treatment toward the former Mrs. Bodine and against me, I filed a pre-trial Motion for a change of judge under our Rule 42(f). An automatic change of judge is a right in Arizona.
24. Judge Markham recused himself but would later "un-recuse" to rule against me.
25. In my motion for recusal, I also called for disqualification of any judge who was a member or knew leadership in the First Baptist Church of Prescott. Mrs. Bodine is a member of the First Baptist Church of Prescott, a big church in a small town, physically located adjacent to the Prescott Courthouse. The church made Mrs. Bodine their Poster Child, supporting her in her sin of leaving her husband. Her then husband, a potential witness for me, had been shunned by that organization, more so after mailing 600 plus cassettes and CD's to the 600 plus members asking them to rebuke his wife for her sin, per Jesus's instruction in the Bible. Also, the potential son-in-law I had written to, who might be a witness, worked for that church in their youth ministry.
26. I discovered later that ex parte "evidence" from the pastor of First Baptist Church had been slipped into the physical court file. as well as a private letter I wrote to Ryan's father. Nine months later, Mrs. Bodine reported "the court asked her for these papers."
27. Since Ryan Shoemaker did not know me, I introduced myself as a Christian Evangelist TO the Mormons in my private spiritual letter to him. On the assumption he was a Christian, in my letter to Ryan was a head-shot photo, offered as evidence of my suffering in my ministry for my Lord, showing me bloodied, the victim of felony assault by an angry Mormon gal while evangelizing Christmas Eve 2005 in Mesa, Arizona.
28. Knowing that Mormons call Christian Evangelists like me "Anti-Mormons" and knowing we have a high percentage of Mormons in political office in Arizona, in my motion for recusal I also called for disqualification of any judge who was a member or knew leadership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a the Mormon church), since my letter to Ryan about my ministry to Mormons was in the court record.
29. Judge Hamm was assigned to my trial on Monday, April 6. I discovered months after the trial from Judge Hamm's resume on line that Judge Hamm graduated from Brigham Young University, a Mormon owned institution. At the time she attended, a scholarly study showed 99% of all matriculates at BYU believe a peculiar doctrine of the Mormon church, that "God is a personal being with 'body, parts, and passions,'" (i.e., the god of Mormonism is a man and has a body of flesh and bones) a central church tenet and peculiar quote attributable to their prophet Joseph Smith. Yet BYU grad Judge Hamm did not recuse herself as required by Arizona law. (She said she had read everything in the court file, which necessarily means she read my Recusal Motion calling for a Mormon judge to disqualify in the trial of an "Anti-Mormon.")
30. In my motion for disqualification, I pointed out that pre-trial evidence had already been entered that I was a Christian Evangelist to the Mormons. I included pages from a California civil suit, filed by a Christian Evangelist brother against the Mormon Church showing the Mormon church fosters the use of the term "Anti-Mormon" and demonstrated that it is a racial epithet. I noted the Church settled with him out of court. I also included a screenshot from a Mormon apologetic website, showing me at a Mormon event with their caption "Anti-Mormon" under a photo of me. Last, I included an Affidavit from a former Mormon bishop, attesting the temple oath of allegiance Mormons make with their church, to use "everything with which the Lord has bless you" to "build up the [Mormon] church." By definition, this includes judgeships and requires a Mormon judge to vanquish a perceived enemy of the church. (I parenthetically add that I love Mormons and desire they be saved from hell.) In sum, an "Anti-Mormon" cannot get a fair trial from a true-believing Mormon. It would be like expecting justice from a Radical Muslim judge sitting on the case of a Zionist Jew.
31. Also, from 20 years in this ministry I know that prior to 1990, the Mormon temple ceremony literally portrayed Christian ministers such as myself as hirelings of Satan, as documented in TIME Magazine, May 14, 1990. Even though no longer acted out in the current ceremony, so pervasive is this teaching in Mormonism today that even Mormon kids taunt me with "How much to you get paid to do this?" (Implying Satan is paying me to share the Bible with them.) Exhibit A is an affidavit from a former Mormon attesting to these facts.
32. Strangely, three days before trial, on Monday, April 6, 2009 I received an un-court like "courtesy call" from Clerk Cynthia Runner. Much like a doctor's office confirming an appointment, she reminded me of court on Thursday. She told me the matter had been transferred to Judge Mary Hamm, then a pro tem judge.
33. Clerk Runner also told me that the plaintiff had filed three Motions prior to trial. To the extent they are stamped, the initials are "CJR," consistent with Cynthia J. Runner. A few months later, when Mrs. Bodine filed papers regarding this matter with the court, the court stamp says "C. Runner."
34. I realize now the Motions were time barred, being submitted days before trial allowing me no opportunity to respond. Nevertheless, they would be cited by Judge Hamm at trial.
35. Trial was held on April 9, 2009. I observed that court clerk Cynthia Runner knew Mrs. Bodine on sight, opening a controlled access door to the clerk's office at various times for her, for her family, and later, leadership of the First Baptist Church. See the affidavit of an independent witness, Exhibit B. I note that the judge's chambers are accessible via this door.
36. When I asked to make an Opening Statement, Judge Hamm told me "this isn't a trial type proceeding," that this was "a very informal proceeding." There was no clear demarcation between Direct and Cross Exam. I was told I could not Object to testimony. Thus, Judge Hamm effectively suspended the Rules of Civil Procedure, even though binding on Justice Courts, per A.R.S. §22-211.
37. Further, Judge Hamm called and questioned witnesses on behalf of Mrs. Bodine, acting as Mrs. Bodine's counsel, prosecuting Mrs. Bodine's case, even leading witnesses when they didn't answer as she wanted. (Mrs. Bodine did not call or question any witnesses.) Even the court transcriber documents this, calling them "The Court's witnesses." (Exhibit C) Judge Hamm did not ask any of the witnesses she called on behalf of Mrs. Bodine any exculpatory questions on my behalf. Judge Hamm excused one of the witnesses she called on behalf of Mrs. Bodine (Officer Murray) from the courtroom after she had called him and questioned him on behalf of Mrs. Bodine. The record says "not subject to recall," preventing me from calling him as a witness.
38. Early into the trial, Judge Hamm mentioned "new material" which had not been served on me or entered into the record at trial. When I told Judge Hamm I had not been given this new material (the pro se's equivalent of an Objection), Judge Hamm said "... the only thing that I recall being new in the material that was submitted this week by Ms. Bodine was a copy of a letter that allegedly you sent to her church." Thus, Judge Hamm admitted to knowing 1) that "new material" was put in the court file 2) what that material was, 3) that Mrs. Bodine submitted it and 4) that Mrs. Bodine did it "this week." (Specifically, Monday afternoon, coincidently the same time I received the "courtesy call" from Clerk Runner and when Mrs. Bodine filed her official paperwork with the court.)
39. When I made an exhaustive search of the physical court file later on June 18, 2009 in the presence of two witnesses, we found three documents had been slipped into the court file without the required Notices of Filings. (See Exhibits D.) There was a private letter I had written to Mr. [Wes] Shoemaker, Ryan's father; a private letter I had written to Chris Inman, the pastor of The First Baptist Church of Prescott, plantiff's church, and an email I had written to Greg [Bodine] the family head, which had been misdirected to Mrs. Bodine's son, Josh Bodine. None of these documents were introduced as evidence at trial. Nevertheless, Judge Hamm cited all these as evidence, referring to all of them except the e-mail to Greg [Bodine]. (Indeed, I would not have known she had read that e-mail and considered it had I not inspected the physical court file myself.) Never having been entered into the record, all these were hearsay. Yet Judge Hamm cited this ex parte material during sentencing as well.
40. All of us who inspected the court file were required to show identification and we were always supervised by clerical staff while we inspected the record.
41. I was advised by an attorney to contact the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice about the ex parte tampering of the court file.
42. I note for the record that Clerk Runner watched intently as we examined the court file. When I left the courthouse, a pastor from First Baptist Church and (I believe) a civilian officer of the Prescott police stalked me for a while.
43. Judge Hamm ruled against me and sustained the Injunction saying, "You seem to think that your [Christian] evangelism gives you the right to make accusations of any nature against people [calling out sin] and send those out to their friends, their relatives... "
44. At sentencing, Judge Hamm said, "And given your statements about the First Amendment, the right to free speech and right to express your opinions, I can't help but think you'd also express that opinion to these minor children." But the children were never mentioned at trial. There was no evidence presented about the children at all. (Ironically, I have never said anything to the children about the divorce.)
45. Judge Hamm enlarged Harassment law, claiming that anything I had written to third parties that mentioned Mrs. Bodine was harassment. She "ordered" that, while the Injunction was in force, I not contact anyone Mrs. Bodine may know saying anything about Mrs. Bodine. For example, I could not tell the church my belief that "Mrs. Bodine is in sin."
46. When Judge Hamm asked me if I had any questions, and I responded "yes," she rudely shot back, "I figured." I asked if her ruling prevented me from filing a pro se civil suit against Mrs. Bodine. Judge Hamm, who is a long time attorney, incorrectly told me that a person needed an attorney to appear in Superior Court. That is, of course, patently false.
47. Immediately after ruling, Judge Hamm served me in court with a so-called "Brady Notice," suspending my Second Amendment right, notifying the Yavapai County Sheriff I was not allowed to possess weapons and putting my name on the Federal government's NCIC database. Aside from erring by claiming Judge Markham had already suspended my Second Amendment right in his temporary Injunction, there is no State or Federal law giving a judge this authority in a civil Harassment matter. I challenged this later in a Petition and Judge Hamm reversed herself. I have been told by an Arizona State Assistant Attorney and just recently a federal prosecutor that the NCIC database is notoriously inaccurate, requiring a paper trail search by human hands before a federal prisoner can be sentenced.
48. I appealed Judge Hamm's ruling in Superior Court in Yavapai County. (Case # CV 20091145)
49. I could not find the three ex parte documents found in the physical court file when I viewed the case file electronically on the Superior Court Clerk's computer system. However, to be fair, the court file is hard to find on the computer. On the other hand, when I inspected the physical file, I was told Judge's notes are not viewable. I confirmed with with the Arizona Supreme Court's Administrative Office. Nonetheless, judge's notes appear in the scanned court file now. (I made copies.) Whether the court file was scanned as a proximate result of this suit, the local court administrator and Presiding Judge Mackey refuse to tell me. (Per letter to Judge Mackey.)
50. On October 1, 2009, I inspected the physical court file again at the Prescott Consolidated Court to see if the file had been "sanitized." While I was kept waiting to inspect the file, I believe I saw Judge Hamm (a red headed woman) enter the Clerk's office. Shortly after she exited, I was allowed to inspect the file. As judge's notes are not open to public inspection (although I have seen some left in by mistake), it cannot be known if anyone destroyed incriminating evidence in the court file.
51. On October 5, 2009 I filed a timely Notice of Claim with Yavapai County against Judge Hamm for violating my civil rights as documented herein.
52. On October 26, 2009, I filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Hamm with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.
53. On October 28, 2009 Presiding Judge Brutinel recommended Judge Hamm to a full time, $100,000/yr judgeship, to work two days a week.
54. On November 2, 2009 the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors appointed Judge Hamm to this full time post, without debate (agenda item adopted by consent) despite my NOC to them.
55. In light of the de facto ex parte communication and the other prima facie violations of the Rules committed by Judge Hamm, I filed a Rule 60(c) Motion to Vacate the Injunction for fraud with the Prescott Consolidated Court on December 22, 2009. In that motion, I clearly stated "Since Judge Markham and Judge Kennedy also recused themselves previously, this Motion should be reviewed by a new impartial judge who is not touched by my previous pretrial Rule 42(f) Motion."
56. Nevertheless, Judge Markham, who had recused himself from this case from the start, "un-recused" himself and ruled against me. He unlawfully ruled on a Motion in which he had no jurisdiction, being disqualified earlier by Rule 42(f).
57. In her Response to my Rule 60(c) Motion, former Mrs. Bodine says "The Court asked for my response on or before January 20, 2010." And later, "I was asked by the Court to respond to Mr. Palmer's many attempts to appeal the Orders." (See Exhibit E) She says she supplied three of the documents I had discovered earlier in the physical court file at ¶ 26.
58. In mid July 2010, Judge Markham issued an order sua sponte, claiming he had 'forgotten" he had recused from my Injunction trial earlier and now was vacating him ruling against me.
59. The Defendants are individuals, entities and municipalities acting under color of state law.
(Defendants Markham, Hamm, Runner, Doe's)
60. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
61. Melody Bodine reported in a filing dated January 13, 2010 that she was "asked by the Court" to respond to a motion. This demonstrates ex parte communication between "the Court" and her.
62. She refers to the three documents cited in ¶ 26 which I found had been slipped into the physical court file ex parte, without any Notice of Filings or any other supporting paperwork. They were never served on me.
64. It is not clear who Mrs. Bodine means when she says by "the Court," and this material evidence will have to be determined upon discovery. If by "the Court," she means by judges communicating through Clerk Runner, then Judge Hamm is implicated, suborning the ex parte material, especially since Judge Hamm acknowledged one of the documents as "new material" which had been submitted by Mrs. Bodine on that fatal Monday. (¶ 38)
65. Considering that Judge Hamm had only been transferred to the case that Monday, it stands to reason that Judge Markham must be implicated, suborning the remaining documents which were not "new" to Judge Hamm, being in the record already.
66. Alternatively, Clerk Cynthia Runner could represent "the Court" to Mrs. Bodine and as such, Clerk Runner may have acted on her own volition, absent instruction from any judge, to tamper with the court file.
67. Despite my objections at trial, Judge Hamm cited these ex parte documents to rule against me.
68. By doing so, the defendants deprived plaintiff of his procedural and substantive due process rights and his First, Second and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
69. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
70. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since all the defendants are sworn officers of the court.
71. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
(Defendants Markham, Hamm, Runner, Doe's)
72. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
73. Defendant Hamm willfully deprived plaintiff of due process by considering ex parte material at trial. She may have suborned said ex parte material. She may have engaged in witness tampering because she knew who to call at trial as witnesses when she prosecuted Mrs. Bodine's case. She did in fact unlawfully suspend the Rules of Civil Procedure, acted as legal counsel for Mrs. Bodine at trial to prosecute Mrs. Bodine's case, and willfully misused her position of authority to deprive me of my Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law.
74. Ex parte communication with a party at trial is, by definition, prejudicial, requiring immediate disqualification sua sponte (no Motion required), per the Arizona Code of Conduct, which is law for Arizona judges. Judge Hamm did not recuse.
75. Judge Hamm said she ruled on what she "imagined" I had done. She did not rule on the basis of evidence.
76. Judge Markham unlawfully "un-recused" himself and ruled against me.
77. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since they are judges.
78. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
79. The actions of the Defendant were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
(Defendant Hamm)
80. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
81. It is presumed that Judge Hamm is normally an impartial judge.
82. When it came to the case of the plaintiff, who Judge Hamm had prior information was a Christian Evangelist to Mormons, Judge Hamm, BYU graduate, presumably a current or former member of the Mormon church and/or sympathetic to the Mormon church, discriminated against me based on my religion, willfully misusing her position of authority to deprive me of equal protection of the law. She willfully refused to recuse on notice, despite the fact that the plaintiff is called an "Anti-Mormon" by the Mormon church, who the Mormon church teaches is a hireling of the devil. She would have further animus since I, in my pre-trial motion calling for recusal of a Mormon judge (or a judge who knew Mormon church leadership) had supplied an affidavit of the "sacred" (secret) Mormon temple ceremony. To divulge such is a "grievous sin" in Mormonism, punishable by death as portrayed in the pre-1990 Mormon temple ceremony.
83. The acts of the defendant toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendant is a judge and had been given ample time to recuse. Her refusal to recuse was premeditated.
84. As a direct result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
85. The actions of the defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
(Defendants Markham, Hamm, Runner, Doe's)
86. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
87. Judge Markham, through his clerk Cynthia Runner, solicited and incorporated ex parte documents into the court file from Mrs. Bodine and the Prescott PD.
88. With no rational basis for it, Judge Markham contacted plaintiff via Clerk Runner on Mrs. Bodine's behalf to prevent me from filing court papers on Mrs. Bodine and to hinder my access to the court and as a personal favor to Mrs. Bodine, perhaps on behalf of Clerk Runner.
89. Judge Markham had communicated to Judge Hamm what he had done.
90. Judge Hamm, through her clerk Cynthia Runner, solicited and incorporated ex parte documents into the court file from Mrs. Bodine.
91. Either judge, or both, along with Clerk Runner and/or Clerk's Doe conspired to prevent four ex parte documents in the physical court file from being scanned into the electric record prepared for the Superior Court for my appeal of the Injunction.
92. When I inspected the physical court file a second time, Judge Hamm was alerted and called to the clerk's office by Clerk Runner or Clerk Doe.
93. Judge Markham un-recused himself to cover up and obstruct justice.
94. Before he was served the summons for this suit, Judge Hamm had informed Judge Markham he was a named party.
95. So to try to avoid suit, before service, Judge Markham un-un-recused himself by vacating his previously unlawful ruling against plaintiff.
96. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendants are judges.
97. As a direct result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff incurred economic, emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
98. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
(Defendant Hamm)
99. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
100. As previously rehearsed, the defendant, by her own admission (i.e., reversing her errant ruling) unlawfully suspended Plaintiff's Second Amendment right. (¶ 48) While somewhat remedied by reversal, permanent and incalculable damage has been done to plaintiff by unlawfully placing plaintiff's name in the NCIC government database where it may manifest in a future background check with dire consequences.
101. As the NCIC database cannot be inspected by the pubic nor corrected by the public, there is no remedy, save this Court act to audit and expunge the NCIC record on my behalf.
102. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, I incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
103. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
(Defendant Hamm)
104. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
105. As previously rehearsed, the defendant, by expanding harassment law beyond the law, sough to, and in fact did, chill my right to free speech and my right to exercise my religion.
106. Judge Hamm called Ryan Shoemaker as a witness for the Plaintiff and questioned him about the letter I wrote him. My letter to Ryan was a private, deeply religious letter of warning, quoting God's words from the Bible. It was written in love, an older Christian man warning a younger that marrying the Bodine's daughter during the turbulent time of family divorce may not be prudent. My letter to Ryan was NOT written to Mrs. Bodine therefore was not directed at her (a requirement for harassment.) Yet Judge Hamm used the letter against me, saying I "knew" Ryan would share my private letter to him with Mrs. Bodine. This is a violation of my 1st Amendment right to free speech and exercise of religion.
107. Judge Hamm chilled my 1st Amendment Free Speech right by enlarging her definition of Harassment to include my opinions as well as "Thought Crime." (That is, what Judge Hamm thought my intentions were.) I feared that anything spiritual I wrote one time to anyone the Plaintiff may know, if the Plaintiff heard about it and was "upset" by it, that it would be considered "harassment" by the State.
108. Thus Judge Hamm has caused me irreparable harm by depriving me of my First Amendment rights.
109. As a result of defendants conduct, I incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
110. The acts of the defendant toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendant is a judge.
111. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
(Defendant's Markham and Hamm)
112. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
113. Both defendants wrongly informed plaintiff that I would need to hire counsel to have equal access to the courts. In particular, Judge Hamm said I could not bring a civil suit against Mrs. Bodine as a pro se. I would have to hire an attorney or Judge Hamm would consider it harassment.
114. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, I incurred emotional and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
115. The acts of the defendants toward plaintiff amount to conduct that shocks the conscience, especially since the defendants are judges who know better.
116. The actions of the Defendants were entered into with an evil mind and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate.
(Defendants Yavapai County, Supervisors Springer, Thurman, Davis)
117. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
118. The named defendants approve judges for Yavapai County.
119. Upon information and belief, defendant Supervisors merely approved Judge Hamm as pro tem by way of a consent vote to an agenda item, which is their SOP.
120. A Notice of Claim had been filed prior to defendants approving Judge Hamm as a full time judge for the County. Yet the defendants approved Judge Hamm to a full time position without exercising any due diligence. Defendants merely approved Judge Hamm by way of a consent vote to an agenda item.
121. To this day, Judge Hamm continues to be approved by defendants, despite the prima facie case of ex parte communication, even though they've had notice of her malfeasance since being served in early July.
122. These policies and customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the part of the above-named Defendants which caused the violations of plaintiff's rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
A. For nominal and compensatory damages to be paid to the charities of my choice, plus special and incidental damages in such a sum as may be proven at trial;
B. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
C. For costs for the suit;
D. For attorney’s fees or equivalent;
E. For Declaratory relief, that my NCIC record be expunged of this incident and that the Prescott Court records and the Yavapai County Superior Court records documenting the Injunction hearing and appeal be expunged.
F. For Injunctive relief, that the Yavapai County Supervisors be ordered to perform due diligence when approving judges for the County, to include investigation of all complaints and perform Internet searches regarding candidate judges
G. For other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Scumbag lawyer

Judge Mary Hamm calls and questions witnesses for the opposition
No, I'm not talking about the scumbag divorce lawyer who had a hand in this fiasco. (That's coming soon to a blog near you.) I'm talking about scumbag lawyer Mary Hamm.

But first, I'm walking a fine line here. As a Christian, I am commanded, in general to "show proper respect to everyone." More specifically, I am commanded to respect those who are in governmental authority. (Romans 13:7)

That means, in general, I shouldn't be throwing names around as others do, calling someone a "scumbag" as in "scumbag lawyers" (as in "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers") or even a scumbag judge if I had material evidence to prove that was right.

But 1) Jesus called King Herod a "fox," so there seems to be some latitude for the Christian, there may be appropriate times to accurately label someone in power. (Although probably a distinction between name-calling and accurately describing.) And 2) I'm not referring to Mary Hamm acting in her capacity as judge. As far as I know, she's not a judge anymore and so not in authority. (And I held my tongue while she was still a judge.)

Rather, I'm referring to Mary Hamm as a scumbag when she acted as lawyer while acting as judge at my trial. For you see, per the excerpt from the trial transcript above, Mary Hamm, the judge, called and questioned the ONLY witnesses for my opponent, acting as my opponent's attorney! What are "The Court's witnesses?" (Thanks to the transcriber for getting this right.)

Scumbag lawyer Mary Hamm even lead the witnesses when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Curiously, judge Mary Hamm did not object to scumbag lawyer Mary Hamm leading witnesses. Nor did judge/attorney Mary Hamm ask any exculpatory questions of her witnesses on my behalf.

Surely a judge acting as a lawyer for a party at trial is not a "judicial act" shielded by immunity judges claim to have when you sue them, as I am doing.

We will see.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

ex parte requires recusal

Here's a timely story related to my case involving retired (?) cheating judge Mary Hamm.
In an opinion handed down today, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that a D.C. Superior Court judge should have recused herself after receiving two e-mails that included information about a witness in a case she was presiding over. The panel of appellate judges determined that the e-mails created the impression of bias and ordered a new trial in the case.
Ya' think? In the above case, the judge above received unsolicited emails. What about when a judge solicits ex parte material from one of the litigants, as it appears (from a response to a motion) that judge Mary Hamm (or Judge Arthur Markham) did? The former is not evil. The latter is.

It became evil when the judge in the above case said when asked to recuse for ex parte communication but didn't.
One day later, however, I.W.’s defense moved to have Broderick recuse herself due to the ex parte communication. Broderick denied that motion, saying it was “untimely” because no objections were made at the time of the announcement. She also said, “I am completely confident, 100% confident that I can keep these matters separate from the facts that are at trial.”
And this my friend, is the problem when a man (or woman) sits in judgment of themselves. Just as no one in a cult knows they're in a cult, no biased judge knows they're biased.

Quoting Justice Kennedy in Caperton v. Massey "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause."

Unless, of course, they're a judge. (20 pages to explain? See Proverbs 10:19.)

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

"Absolute immunity corrupts absolutey"

Here's a sad story of a judge abusing his power to get revenge.
He [Judge Love] told me: "Do you know who, who this guy is?"
I said: "No."
He said: "This is the guy that is scheduled to testify against me in the judiciary panel."
And so the judge arranged a false arrest.

This is remarkably parallel to what happened to me in the small town of Prescott, Arizona, after I filed a complaint of judicial misconduct which resulted in former judge hinson resigning. (And/or hatred by a BYU grad / Mormon judge Mary E. Hamm.)

The good citizen in the case above initially won $60,000 in damages from the judge in a jury trial. Which is what I'm praying for someday. Hurray!

But then, instead of confessing his sin, the judge appealed and his brethren judges vacated the verdict (so much for juries being the final check & balance) and remanded the case back for trial, the brethren claiming judges have absolute immunity, even when a judge purposely abuses her power.

I don't know how the story ended up. But I know what the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said.
[N]othing tends to bring courts or the administration of justice into disrespect more than the spectacle of a prejudiced judge sitting in judgment upon the rights of litigants. A lack of confidence in the integrity of courts rocks the very foundations of organized society, promotes unrest and dissatisfaction, and even encourages revolution.
Keep it up, judges and the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Anarchy is just around the corner. And you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Polk v. Romley

Post and youtube video coming soon!

Friday, December 24, 2010

Merry Christmas America

It's time for my annual Christmas message.

Ever since Jesus came back to life and ascended back into heaven, every generation of Christians has warned of His imminent return and the subsequent judgment to come. (Unlike winter and spring, Jesus went out like a lamb but will come back like a lion. Think of the oddly named Battle Hymn of the Republic: "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord: He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;" )

We've been waiting and warning for 2000 years now. Maybe you think we're "crying 'Wolf!'"? (See 2 peter 3:4) But certainly every day is closer to the Last Day, by definition. It seems to me, in my short life, that the world, or at least America, is becoming more and more lawless/godless, a requirement for judgment. Globally, in the U.S. neither our Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch obey our own laws. It's getting more blatant. No one blushes (is ashamed) anymore. Same comment with local politics, as I've been forced to intimately observe these past few years. (Maybe it's always been this bad but the Internet is shedding light on the corruption now? Still, the sea change in the past few years (since Clinton?) is that, when caught, no one is ashamed anymore but rather is defiant.)

We're already suffering the consequences of a godless society: "Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path." Isaiah 3:12. We've had women in power for quite some time. (Even in the churches.) Now we have a child President.

More telling, homosexuality is becoming more prevalent, blatant and "protected," throughout the world. Remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. They served as an example for what's to come. It seems the predicted earthquakes have started. Famines and pestilence are next. (Not to mention North and South Korea - "wars and rumors of wars.")

It sure seems like ours is the generation since we now have the technology so that events predicted long ago in the last book of the Bible don't sound like science fiction anymore. (Implantable chips for the coming cashless society and webcams to watch the bodies of the two witnesses as they lie in the street. See Rev 13:16-17 and Rev 9:10-11 respectively.) If I'm right, there will be a great apostasy of so-called "christians," which, in my own little world, seems to have already started. And the Muslims haven't come yet to accelerate the process!

So here are some selected Bible verses for religious Americans to consider as you ostensibly celebrate the birth of God come in the flesh this December 25th. As they pertain to this blog, they are a sign of the times. "Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted." (Habakkuk 1:4)

You probably saw the cute (but faked?) youtube video of the Christmas Food Court Flash Mob singing the Hallelujah Chorus? This was the year that Americans fought back against political correctness and insisted it was "Merry CHRISTmas," not "Happy Holidays." Sounds great, huh? But "'You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" Matthew 15:7-9

[Strictly speaking, Jesus was talking to the Jews of His day. But can't this apply to the religious in our country today? Consider: God says, and every mom knows, it's a baby in the womb. No mom ever says "The 'fetus' kicked." Even little girls know it's a baby in there. And yet our Supreme Court teaches and rules it's okay to murder unborn babies. And we do. I don't see how we can escape judgment.]

"'Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it." Numbers 35:33And, "See, the LORD is coming out of his dwelling to punish the people of the earth for their sins. The earth will disclose the blood shed upon her; she will conceal her slain no longer." Isaiah 26:21

Or consider marriage vows before God. God says, "... what [I have] joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). So people-most hypocritically, religious people-marry and make their vows before God in churches. But they break their vows to God in a court of law (ironically, testifying under oath, "so help me God") and divorce because men teach and rule that they can. And, because, like murdering their babies, they want to.

"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry." 1 Sam 15:22-23 "The man (or woman) who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4

"... when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and sin yet more. Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three years." Amos 4:4 (Sarcasm. Yes, God is sometimes sarcastic.)

Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." Some Pharisees (American 'christians') who were with Him heard Him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.'" John 9:39

"Then he told me, 'Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy. Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.'" Rev 22:10-12 10

Well, in light of that last passage, I won't preach to you. If you're vile, so be it. It's your choice. I'll simply repeat Jesus's question to you: "What good will it be for a man (or woman) if he/she gains the whole world, yet forfeits his/her soul?" (Matt 16:26)

May the Lord reward you according to what you have done. And He will.

Merry Christmas?

Monday, October 18, 2010

Ex parte document to the "pastor" of First Baptist of Prescott

I don't know if there's really any legal "confidentiality privilege" for a minister. But certainly when you write to a religious leader of a church to warn him about one of his sheep in sin, you expect the correspondence won't be public record but kept within the church. But even though no one compelled "pastor" Chris Inman of First Bapist Church of Prescott to share my letter in court, he did.

As before, I've thought (and prayed) long and hard about publishing these ex parte documents. At first I wasn't going to post them because they were private correspondence from me to others. But 1) since they're in the public record (kinda sorta—they're in the physical court file in Prescott, Arizona, even though they don't appear in the electronically scanned record of the same file for the appeal in Superior Court) UPDATE: The court file has been scanned into the public record. It's hard to know if it's always been there, since it's hard to find in the case file, or if it was put in there after this lawsuit started. I'm suspicious because, when I inspected the physical file, I was told that judge's personal notes were not viewable. Yet, they now appear in the electronic file. (I made copies.) and 2) since the private parties to whom I wrote chose to disclose them for court, well, I figure I'm not betraying any confidences that they didn't.

So here is a private letter supplied by the Plaintiff, Melody Bodine (now Melody Thomas-Morgan) which either Judge Hamm or Judge Markham solicited and unlawfully ordered slipped into the court file. (If she can be trusted, in a Response to a Motion, the former Mrs. Bodine claims the court "asked" her for these documents.) Judge Hamm mentioned this letter at trial and sentencing. It was never entered into evidence, making it hearsay. I was never given an opportunity to formally object to this letter, although I informally told Judge Hamm at trial that I had not received any notice of this letter.

Tampering with a court file is criminal. It undermines the integrity of our entire judicial process. It's cheating. How do any of you know the same isn't being done to you in Prescott?

You can inspect the court file yourself too - - ask to inspect the file for case 20081217J at the Prescott Consolidated Court. You will not find this document in the electronic scanned version of the case at appeal in Superior Court! CV 20091145

Background: Melody Bodine accused me of Harassment and obtained a temporary injunction against me. As I hadn't had any contact with Mrs. Bodine since when she first filed papers against her husband, I fought the Injunction in court.

There wasn't any evidence to use against me, so they made it up. This is a private, heartfelt, spiritual letter I had sent to a Mr. Chris Inman of First Baptist Church in Prescott. As you can see, this letter was not sent to Melody Bodine and therefore, is not an act directed at her. (Which is part of the definition of harassment.) Nevertheless, Judge Hamm cited this as an act of harassment against Mrs. Bodine.

As with other letters I've written to other (ostensible) Christians who haven't met me, I included a head shot of me after I was assaulted doing evangelical work to establish some commonality in the faith.

Pretty scary, isn't it? Judge Hamm thought so. Click on the photo for the story.

Punched in the face by an angry Mormon gal.May 7, 2008

Hello Mr. Inman:

Please forgive the formality of sending this letter via Certified Mail, Return Receipt. This letter is 99% spiritual and only 1% secular. But, as I hear you all (church leadership) are very concerned about being sued, I thought you would want this. This letter will serve to put you on notice about a serious safety issue within your corporation concerning potential loss of life. (Literal life, as opposed to spiritual life.) Should there be loss of life, you may find yourselves the target of numerous lawsuits and I don't want any blood on my hands. More on that later. Now to the spiritual.

Disclosure: Not to start off on the wrong foot, but for the sake of conscience (mine), in writing you I am not condoning the Incorporated Church, rule by monarchal bishop (a.k.a. "Pastor,") or young men in authority. (At 52 myself, the latter includes me. See 1 Peter 5:1 ("elders") contrasted with v 5 ("young men"). See also 1 Kings 14:21, where Rehoboam and his friends are called "young" at 40.] But since you are the point man in this matter, I necessarily write you.

I'll introduce myself shortly. I'm writing about the Bodine family. I've been horrified by what I've seen, and maybe you can help me understand what's going on or correct any misunderstandings I may have. As I'm trying to keep what portends to be a long letter short, I don't have time to sugarcoat. Please do not confuse conciseness with curtness.

To get to the heart of the matter, did you watch Congress meet in special session on a Sunday night years ago to discuss Terry Schiavo? (C-SPAN, March, 2005) I was horrified to see two distinct groups of people in the battle. Those (mostly Conservatives) who were on the side of life. They were urgently trying to move things along to pass a law to save Mrs. Schiavo as she was being starved to death. Then there were the Liberals, those on the Left, as Jesus would say. They were like the Pharisees, concerned more with the law even if it meant her death.

I've noticed the same dichotomy with those touching the Bodine family. There are those who are on the side of life and those on the side of sin and death. I would not wish this on anyone, but one of the many reasons Jesus came was "so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed." (Luke 2:35) It seems the Bodine's lot is similar. Many hearts are being revealed in this crucible of testing and I'm grieved by what I'm seeing.

I'm getting ahead of myself, but how is it that most of the stalwart friends of the Bodine family believe that Melody is in deep, unconfessed unrepentant sin and have tried to rebuke her, but your church is supporting her? Even Josh (Bodine) has observed that "MANY of our family friends" see Melody as the protagonist. (From an email from Josh to me.) Chris, how can it be that many of the long time friends see Melody in sin, but your fellowship does not? Your fellowship is aiding and abetting her? She thinks your financial support is "miraculous." I think that's blasphemous. What's wrong with this picture? We are clearly not united in Christ here. Why do you think that is? Are you at all concerned about this dichotomy? These are mutually exclusive positions. We can't both be in God's will as we pray for mutually exclusive outcomes. At least one of us must be in sin.

Now, by way of introduction, my name is Mike Palmer. I've been a friend of, and known the Bodine family for about 14 years. (Greg, Melody and all the children.) I have overnighted with them numerous times, starting when Sarah was 8 at their home in Glendale. I last stayed with the entire family at their home in Humboldt about a year before they moved to Prescott, and was such a part of the family that Diane actually came out one evening with a mud mask on. It was my last visit there when Greg first asked me to pray for him and Melody, as they were beginning to have marital problems.

I claim to be a Christian. Further, one of a few (men) "given to be an evangelist," per Ephesians 4:11. I primarily witness to the Mormon people in front of their temple in Mesa, Arizona. But as you know from the Bible and life experience, anyone can claim to be a Christian. ("'Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord!" will enter the kingdom of heaven.'" Matthew 7:21) Since Paul warned us that savage wolves would target the flock (Acts 20:29), the probability is high that you've seen your share of men who claimed to be Christians but are not, as also I have seen during my ministry. So please test me as you see fit. In the meantime, as evidence of my faith, I offer the photo above, showing I've shed a little blood for Christ. (Very little. Nothing like the Apostle Paul or the prophets of old who were martyred.) A punch to my eye by an angry Mormon gal on Christmas Eve 2005 has left me with permanent vision loss in my dominant eye, even as I struggle to write this.

Still, since we are commanded "do NOT believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God... " (1 John 4:1), you should not believe I am a Christian just because I say so. Likewise, I will not assume you are a Christian because you say so. Rather, "wisdom is proved right by her actions." (Matthew 11:19) The true measure of love for God is obedience ("If you love Me, you WILL obey what I command." John 14:15). But "let us not love with words or tongue." That's too easy. Rather, let us love "with actions, and in truth." (1 John 3:18) I've noticed that's what separates the wheat from the tares.

Even though I'm a man of no repute, unlike you, I have a history with the Bodines that gives me a unique perspective. Before you arrived on scene, everyone, believers and unbelievers alike, thought the Bodines were the perfect Christian family. And Melody the perfect Christian wife. I used to joke with Melody, as a single man, asking if she had a sister. (The implication being, if I wanted to be married, it would be to someone like her.) In fact, even though I think I'm called to be single and seven children would be quite a sacrifice, I often thought that if Greg died prematurely, I would offer myself to Melody (if she would have me) per Deuteronomy 25:5. But no longer. Jesus said that even the angels couldn't always tell the wheat from the tares and we know from the parable of the seed sower, some seed starts to grow but dies later, choked out by weeds. These people did not remain with Christ, and John says they never belonged to us in the first place. (1 John 2:19)

About a year and a half ago, Melody snapped. Whether spiritual, physiological, mental, demonic or all of the above, she is now a different woman. To paraphrase Jesus, "we never knew her." She has spurned all her friends who have tried to rebuke her with Scripture (and there have been many) after she first took Greg to court. (I assume you've read xxxxx's letter to you all? Mr. xxxxxx was an elder in our house church.)

FYI, Melody has always been drastically affected by hormones. When she was pregnant with the children, she was bedridden with morning sickness most of the time. While mid-40's is a little early for menopause, the most gracious explanation for her sinful waywardness is that it's a medical condition, a result of some type of "chemical imbalance." (Although personally, I think the Holy Spirit can manifest obedience in spite of medical conditions.)

Now, I have not taken sides in this matter except, like the Levites after Moses came down from the mountain, to be on the Lord's side. Regardless of who needs to be gored in the process. (Exodus 36:27) My desire is God's desire - that we "first be reconciled before presenting our offering." (Paraphrasing Jesus in Matthew 5:24.) To see the Bodine family reunited and forgiveness abound. Is that your desire too?

Admittedly, I sound like I am on Greg's side in this letter, but that's simply because he is not the protagonist in dissolving the marriage, nor can he stop Melody from separating from him. (Melody has stated in court records that she does NOT want to be reconciled.) But I have been very careful to try to stay objective, fact checking the raw data for myself, attending all the trials and have even contacted those who are "supporting" Melody (as here, with you?), to see if I'm in error. To make sure I'm not on the side of sin.

Please know I am writing this without the knowledge or consent of Greg (or Melody). I'm writing this of my own volition. (Of course, I ascribe writing this difficult letter to the Spirit moving me.)

In addition to my overarching concern about how "Christians" are polarizing themselves on opposite sides in this spiritual battle (and therefore, some must be in sin), I'm also writing to encourage you. And yes—even as Jesus did in His letters to most of the churches, not to mention the bulk of Scripture—to chastise you. I hope you'll receive this as a man of God as Psalm 141:5 says: "Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me--it is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it." I trust that if I am a righteous man speaking truth, and if you are a righteous man, you will comport yourself with Scripture and act righteously.

So, to encourage, I'm glad that - you okay, I'll say it: you finally met with Greg a few weeks ago. (He had asked me to pray for that meeting.) I hope you will meet with him again soon one on one - so to get to know his heart, to hear his side of the story and to check the data for yourself without a 3rd party potentially influencing you.

Now I've got to take away the "Atta boy." I hope I'm not being quick to judge, but how is it you took you so long to meet with Greg but found the time to show up for Melody Thursday morning at the trial? Trying to be gracious, Greg told me you broke your foot and have been busy with P.T. Not to get into a disciple-like discussion of "who is the greatest," I've been able to make the 3 hour round trip drive to pray with Greg numerous times during this spiritual battle, and that with a bad eye that makes driving difficult and unpleasant. Are there sheep in your fellowship in more dire straights than Greg and Melody who require your attention? Even if there are, I don't understand why you can't give Greg equal time, even with a bad foot. He is only a few minutes away and you know he would gladly come to you if you are unable to come to him.

While I'm glad you finally met with Greg, I'm horrified over what came out. If the report I heard is correct, you were hesitant to meet him alone because you all were worried that Greg would sue the church?

First, I'm horrified that you don't know Greg at all nor have you apparently made any effort to know his heart in this very serious matter of life and death. Greg is trying to be a man of God, and while we all sin, he has confessed his sins and been very consistent in trying to obey God's commands, even if it puts him in severe debt or even if it cost him the custody of his children. (The infamous CD appeal to the church.) Don't you know the Scripture forbids Christians to take each other to court? As Paul said, "I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?" Not even you, Chris?

Given this Scriptural prohibition against believers going to law before unbelievers, have you taken Melody to task for violating this command? You do know she's been the protagonist in this matter, taking her husband to court and making a mockery of Christianity before unbelievers? No wonder the world has such a bad view of Christianity. You support her in this?

Further, if you thought Greg was going to sue you, and presuming you know the Scriptural prohibition, why did no Godly men from among you go to Greg to learn his intentions and if evil, to warn him it would be sin?

This is horrible. Do you know Greg used to teach in your fellowship? Doesn't anyone vet anyone there? I mean, if he's such a bad guy, he never should have been allowed to teach! If there's no vetting of leadership there, aren't you at all worried about wolves in sheep's clothing invading and devouring your flock? (Acts 20:29) Where are the good shepherds with their staffs? But I digress.

Here's an interesting Scriptural twist: Even if you all decide that Greg is the one in unrepentant sin and if you excommunicate him, branding him an "unbeliever," God says "if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must NOT divorce him."

Greg has made it clear from the start that he has ALWAYS wanted to be reconciled to his wife and would live with her. He prays this constantly. (He even moved back into their original "dream house" at great financial sacrifice to save it, should his wife reunite with him.) He has consistently acted in good faith on this. He did not instigate the (so-called "emergency") legal action to separate. Melody did. Despite initially presenting that she would be reconciled, Melody eventually admitted in court records that she does NOT want to be reconciled.

But Paul says that the Lord Himself gives the command "A wife MUST NOT separate from her husband." (1 Corinthians 7:10)

Then he allows for sinful behavior. "But if she does [and that would be sin, but, as with Moses giving instructions for hard hearts about divorce], she must remain unmarried or BE RECONCILED to her husband."

While you might argue God "allows" a woman to separate from her husband, this is NOT what Melody is doing. Biblical separation is not the same as usurping headship from your husband, becoming in effect, your own head. It is not the same as a woman raising the children, a responsibility Ephesians 6:4 appoints to fathers. (Melody stated in court that she did NOT want the children raised with Greg's "religious" values. Again, Ephesians 6:4 says that is the father's right, not hers.) It is not the same as expecting your husband to pay your expenses while you are in sin, acting contrary to God's commands. That is perverse.

Logically then, you all should be telling her she is in sin for separating from her husband even if you deem him an unbeliever! And you all should be encouraging her to be reconciled "... forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not hearing that anyone of you are doing that. Rather, I see many of you encouraging Melody in her sin. Wow. Just like the Corinthians? Shouldn't you expel the immoral sister?

Scripture says,"The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer." What is your counsel to Melody about this? Do you think she's keeping this command? (They live apart.) If not, then isn't she in sin?

Ignoring for now the two individuals involved and the issue of who's in sin, let's get back to my first concern, the bigger abomination. Christians are supposed to be of one mind. (Numerous citations. 1 Corinthians 1:10, for example.) So how is it that when God says "I hate divorce" (Malachi 2:16) but a divorce is in the works, regardless of who's to blame, how is it that I, and many of us are devastated and upset, but Melody, and at least one in your leadership, are ecstatic? (Melody was hugging her attorneys and even shook the hand of Greg's attorney. Whereas, at the first trial, she told Greg's attorney to take a flying leap.) Who has the mind of God here? Why the dichotomy? Why are some of us praying one way and some praying the exact opposite? To quote James about springs that flow both fresh and salt water, "My brothers, this should not be!"

I'm having trouble finding anything about the office of "music pastor" in the Bible, but if we allow this is a legitimate position and that he's an elder, would you say he is above reproach in his relationship with Melody? They sure spend a lot of time together. They appear married. Are they in love with each other? Or is Melody in love with him? (And I don't mean "agape" love.) I wonder what Mrs. Knight thinks of the time the Mister spends with Melody? Is this Holy? Applying the Golden Rule, how you would you like it if another man was plowing with your heifer? (Judges 14:18) Instead of having a man counsel another man's wife, I read in the Bible that "older women should train the younger to love their husbands and children." Is that what your music pastor is doing? Training Melody to love her husband?

There's great wisdom in God's command. By commanding women to instruct women, God has preemptively removed the temptation of a man becoming involved with another man's wife, per 2 Timothy 3:6. ("They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires...")

In addition to being of one mind and loving one another, another mark of a Christian is that we are to be impartial when we judge, not taking in juicy morsels of gossip (Proverbs 18:8), but diligently striving to investigate both sides of a report, checking for veracity, especially when sin is alleged.

Proverb 18:17: "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not seeing your church applying this principle here. It seems that no one in your fellowship, especially your church leadership, is interested in questioning the accuser (Melody) or letting the accused speak. (Greg.) There may be a sinister reason for that, per the enclosed news story about the infamous "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright and how he came by his wife. (It happens, and I see many unfortunate parallels as Greg has similarly tried to work with his "pastor," believing the man was there to help. Time will tell.)

For example, I hear that Melody is telling everyone that "My husband abandoned me." Is hers a true statement? I remember when Greg called me asking for counsel about moving out of his house. My recollection is that Melody has asked HIM to move out of the house. (But only "temporarily" was the plan?) Against my counsel, he acquiesced to her request. Shortly thereafter, she changed the locks. And then she got an (I say bogus) Order of Protection to keep him away. (Even Melody's attorney said in court that no one is alleging nor has alleged that Greg has physically abused Melody.) And, as I said before, Melody has been the protagonist in this matter, filing all the major court papers. How can she say her husband abandoned her when she is the one pushing him out?

And now, I suspect after the recent trial that she is telling everyone that her husband is divorcing her. Am I right? But I was there for the entire trial. On day one, Melody asked to have her maiden name back! I trust you know that names are important to God (Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah) and that the reason married women take on their husband's last name is to reflect his headship and that she has come under his authority. By rejecting Greg's last name, Melody was first to ask for a de facto divorce.

Then, as Greg explained in court Friday, there is no such thing in God's law as "legal separation." That is man's law, a legal construct, an unholy contrivance of man. As Greg explained in court, you are either keeping your marriage vows before God or you are not. Since Melody stated she does not want to be reconciled, she has broken her marriage vow.

And those food stamps! Isn't it de facto gossip when Melody tells you all she is on food stamps? The implication is that, if she didn't say it outright, "my husband is starving me to death." Oh, come on!

First of all, if you all really believed Greg was starving Melody to death, then why didn't some Godly men go to Greg and - after investigating the facts for themselves - and confront Greg about his sin? (Greg tells me he has often paid over and above what the court told him to pay.)

Second, do you know that Melody was NOT vetted by the government to determine if she really qualified for Food Stamps? I saw the paperwork. (And you can see it to. Greg has it. It was part of the subpoenaed documents.) As per her practice, Melody filed for "Emergency Action" and the government issued her food stamps with an investigation pending later. How do you know Melody has been spending money wisely? How do you know she isn't a compulsive gambler? I'm not saying she is, but did anyone check where her money went? Could you have been conned? (This is the brilliance of God having older women counsel the younger. Older women don't fall for the crying shtick. Think Dr. Laura with women callers.)

Third, the Scripture says that you're not to support widows under 60 so as to not burden the church. While I suppose I'm glad you were all charitable and didn't have to take money from a missionary to help Melody, she is NOT a widow, she is not under 60, and she has a family who could have taken care of her. Again, you all should have gone to her husband first if you thought he was starving her and the children to death.

God says the husband is the head of the wife. (Ephesians 5:23) So I'm surprised you have only talked with Melody and have rejected her head. Isn't that a perversion of what God has ordained?

Golden Rule again: How would you like it if those in the church only listened to your wife's tales about you?

How do you know Melody is telling you the truth? Have you done any fact checking with Greg? How do you know she's not an adulteress? That is a common reason spouses divorce, you know, and we should consider the very real possibility.

Since I've never been married, this is out of my experience. But many of Greg's friends from around the country have suggested Melody has committed adultery, based on their life observations. They say the changes in Melody are classic.. Many believe they know who the man is. (It's "The Scarlet Letter" all over again.) Has anyone asked her? At the very least, it seems she's committing "spiritual" adultery, taking on another man as her spiritual head in an unholy union. Has anyone asked her if anything happened on her $2000 binge alone at that Scottsdale Resort?

Forgive me for being stupid. I've never been to Seminary. But I can't find anything in Scripture about overseers in a church interloping in someone's marriage. Nor can I find anything in the Bible about "marriage counseling," not to mention anything about elders passing notes between husband and wife. Wouldn't it be better if, instead of playing "High School," you commanded Melody to simply talk to her husband? (She already leaves him voice messages on his cell phone (under the guise of leaving a message for one of the children), so she demonstrates she is willing to "talk" to him when it's convenient for her.) Unfortunately this has now degenerated to the point that even your secretary is involved in passing notes. How do you ever expect Melody to be reconciled by passing notes through you? Would YOU want someone passing notes to you from your bride? Is chief note passer in your job description? About the only good I can see from the note passing is that it gives you an opportunity to see who loves the children and who is using them as pawns.

What I do find in Scripture about marriage is that "... a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." That's ironic because Melody reminded me of this fact over the family dinner table in happier times. Do you think Greg and Melody are one flesh? Is she abiding by that command?

She also told me, in that context, that husband and wife weren't to have secrets from each other. Do you think she's abiding by that? Have you asked Greg if he knows everything (or anything) that's going on in her life or the life of the children? I, personally, have seen the raw data where Melody has redacted data, keeping things secret about her and the children.

Further, what I find in Scripture about marriage is "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." (I trust you know that doesn't mean, "husbands, do whatever your wives say," any more than Jesus should do whatever the church tells Him to do. The husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.) In Greg's case, he said in court that he has gone $200,000 into debt to appease his wife, to get the issue of money off the table, since she said money was in the way of reconciliation. Doesn't that demonstrate love / sacrifice on Greg's part? (I think Melody was lying and never intended to be reconciled. But you need to get the data for yourself to decide.)

I also find this command about marriage: "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Chris, do you think Melody is submitting to her husband ... in anything? Isn't she in sin? Have you rebuked her?

Did you know Melody was found in contempt of court? But we're supposed to "submit to the governing authorities." (Romans 13:1) Did anyone in your fellowship rebuke Melody for this sin?


Oh yeah, the secular 1%. When Melody changed a year and a half ago, almost without exception, everyone who knew her and heard the story, myself included, speculated that she might have a "chemical imbalance." That's the phrase that was almost exclusively used independently by everyone. Think Andrea Yates. That name came up more than once. Further, Greg reports that during the Andrea Yates trial, Melody didn't ascribe any evil to Mrs. Yates, but rather thought her husband drove her to it. That's scary.

I've already told you how drastically Melody was affected by hormones during pregnancy. My concern is that she is mentally unstable and could go "Postal." Greg has told me that even Josh saw she is unstable and was worried that she might take her life. I'm more worried she might take the life of others.

You didn't see her in court previously when she revealed that she had moved out of the house without telling Greg. (Thus forcing the children to deceive their father, as he would drop them off at the house, they would go in, acting as though they were home. They would sit and wait in an empty house until Melody or Diane picked them up later.) She claimed in court that she was afraid of Greg, because she had stopped homeschooling the children and enrolled them into your school. (This was before any court order giving her permission to do that. I would be curious to know your policy about enrolling children in your school when parents are not in agreement.) She thought he would be upset and come after her.

She has since changed her story (i.e., is lying) and now says she moved because the house was about to go into foreclosure. But the facts are in the transcript for anyone to see.

My thought during the trial was "this lady is paranoid delusional." Greg's attorney, while not a psychologist either, has 35 years of experience with all kinds of people. He has deposed murders. After deposing Melody, he told me he thinks Melody has a "narcissistic personality disorder." (You've seen the Vanity License Plate on her car?)

I suspect that it is not by coincidence, but rather by design that Melody is working in the school. (Ask Greg about the implications as to parent-teacher conferences.) Whatever the reasons, I don't think it's prudent that she should be there in her mental condition. Certainly she should not around children, who are less able to defend themselves if she should go into a fit of rage. And I've talked first hand with some who have experienced her unprovoked fits of rage.

But if Melody should go Postal, if after, for example, being challenged by Christians or after being spurned by a lover there, and ends up murdering a bunch of people, including children, I expect many of your members will take you to court. Should that happen, I will be compelled by Leviticus 5:1 to contact their attorneys telling them I had warned you of the danger. So let this letter serve as notice of my concern that, based on my observation and the observations of disparate others, Melody Bodine, your employee, appears mentally unstable, has demonstrated fits of uncontrollable rage and therefore, may be a potential danger to the lives of others around her.


How can those who claim Christ can be on totally opposite sides of a black and white sin issue? Clearly, at least one of us is in sin. Given the facts, I don't think it's me.

Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss any of this, although I suggest your time is better spent talking to Greg directly. He has much of the raw data and it would be better talking to the source than to me. Perhaps you can spend an overnight at his house and you can get to know him, or at least his side of the story, better.

I pray that, like the Levites, you are on the Lord's side. And act accordingly.

P.S. I've included a CD with an mp3 audio clip from Rush Limbaugh to give you some insight into what often happens in divorces and why you have to be very careful as you gather data from the children. This was when Alec Baldwin, the actor, made news when he left a telephone rant to his daughter about two years ago.

Could what Rush described be happening here?

Ex parte document to Mr. Shoemaker

As before, I've thought (and prayed) long and hard about publishing these ex parte documents. At first I wasn't going to post them because they were private correspondence from me to others. But 1) since they're in the public record (kinda sorta—they're in the physical court file in Prescott, Arizona even though they don't appear in the electronically scanned record of the same file for the appeal in Superior Court UPDATE: The court file has been scanned into the public record. It's hard to know if it's always been there, since it's hard to find in the case file, or if it was put in there after this lawsuit started. I'm suspicious because, when I inspected the physical file, I was told that judge's personal notes were not viewable. Yet, they now appear in the electronic file. (I made copies.) and 2) since the private parties to whom I wrote chose to disclose them for court, well, I figure I'm not betraying any confidences that they didn't.

So here is a private letter supplied by the Plaintiff, Melody Bodine (now Melody Thomas-Morgan) which either Judge Hamm or Judge Markham solicited and unlawfully ordered slipped into the court file. (If she can be trusted, in a Response to a Motion, the former Mrs. Bodine claims the court "asked" her for these documents.) Judge Hamm mentioned this letter at trial and sentencing. It was never entered into evidence, making it hearsay. I was never given an opportunity to formally object to this letter, although I informally told Judge Hamm at trial that I had not received any notice of this letter.

Tampering with a court file is criminal. It undermines the integrity of our entire judicial process. It's cheating. How do any of you know the same isn't being done to you in Prescott?

You can inspect the court file yourself too - - ask to inspect the file for case 20081217J at the Prescott Consolidated Court. You will not find this document in the electronic scanned version of the case at appeal in Superior Court! CV 20091145

I should add that this letter was written more than a year before Mrs. Bodine claimed harassment. This letter is stale by law. Nevertheless, Judge Hamm considered it anyway.

Background: Melody Bodine accused me of Harassment and obtained a temporary injunction against me. As I hadn't had any contact with Mrs. Bodine since when she first filed papers against her husband, I fought the Injunction in court.

There wasn't any evidence to use against me, so they made it up. This is a private, heartfelt, spiritual letter I had hastily sent to a Mr. Wes Shoemaker days before his son was to marry. Mr. Shoemaker's son, Ryan, was about to marry the oldest daughter in a family going through the throes of a divorce. Even though private, Mr. Shoemaker apparently shared it and it found its way into the court file without any notice to me.

As you can see, this email was not sent to Melody Bodine and therefore, is not an act directed at her. (Which is part of the definition of harassment.) Nevertheless, Judge Hamm cited this as an act of harassment against Mrs. Bodine.

Incidentally, I wrote a similar private letter to warn young Ryan Shoemaker that he might be making a HUGE mistake, marrying in the turbulent time of divorce.

Even though he wasn't even a member of the family at the time, Judge Hamm said "You knew he would show Mrs. Bodine this letter" and said this was harassment. So now a judge can use prognostication as evidence?

Judge Hamm called Ryan to the witness stand (!), asked him questions for Mrs. Bodine. (Mrs. Bodine did not call any witnesses or ask any questions. Judge Hamm was her attorney.) Among the questions she asked Ryan (she tried to lead the witness when he didn't answer just right), she asked how he felt about the photo of me I sent. (See letter below.)

Pretty scary, isn't it? It's of me after I was beat up while evangelizing. Click on the photo for the story.

Punched in the face by an angry Mormon gal.October 9, 2007

Hello Mr. Shoemaker:

Please forgive the melodrama of sending this overnight, but time is short. The Spirit only brought you to my attention the other day. More on that in a moment.

By way of introduction, my name is Mike Palmer. I doubt we've met, unless you've visited the Mormon temple in Mesa in the past decade and talked to "the guy holding the (Bible) sign" at their light show in December or during their Easter Pageant. I claim to be a Christian Evangelist who works the front line in the spiritual battle, primarily witnessing to the lost Mormon (LDS) people.

But as you know from the Bible, anyone can claim to be a Christian. Jesus said even the angels couldn't always tell the wheat from tares, and without persecution, it's even harder. In my short Christian life (20+ years; 50 years since my first birth), I've been surprised to see four or five gung-ho people eventually deny the faith. So we are to be suspicious, which is noble. Like the Bereans, we should "test everything" (1 Thes 5:21) We are commanded "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God... " (1 John 4:1)

So I don't expect you to believe me or anything I say. But I hope you'll test everything I say. In my defense, though, you can see from the photo that I've shed a little blood for Christ. (Very little. Nothing like the Apostle Paul or the prophets of old who were martyred.) A punch to my eye (and nose) by an angry Mormon gal on Christmas Eve 2005 at the Mormon temple resulted in permanent vision loss in one eye and I write this with great difficulty. (Please forgive any typos.) And yet, I still love them and have to warn them they're on the road to destruction. I'm writing you because I apparently love your son Ryan more than you do and also have to warn you and him of the road he is currently on.

Sorry to be so blunt. I don't sugar coat much in my ministry to the Mormons when I warn them about hell, and there's no time to sugar coat this now. But I would be remiss and culpable before God if I didn't warn you, as his father, of what Ryan is unknowingly getting himself in to. (Frankly, I don't think he wants to know. As you don't want to know? Like father, like son?) But look, the Apostle Paul warned that a Godly marriage was hard enough ["But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this." 1 Cor 7:28]. Unfortunately, your son is currently headed for an ungodly marriage (who knows now if Sarah is really a believer?) and I really, REALLY want to spare him this, as he's mostly an innocent victim. He's being used. Someone needs to warn him what's ahead, and unfortunately, the lot now falls to me.

I'm not usually given to Crazymania (charismatic) stuff, but I "prophesy" that Sarah, in generational curse fashion, will divorce Ryan in about 7 years without Biblical cause, just as her mom is divorcing her dad. (With the blessings of her local "church" to boot.) I've known the Bodine family, both Greg and Melody, for about 14 years. So I think I know what I'm talking about.

[So that you know, I am writing this without Greg's knowledge or consent. He mentioned to me the other day how the Spirit had brought it to mind to call you and ask to meet with you.

A reasonable request, don't you think? But you would not. I've heard that either you or your wife have met Melody in person. Why not Greg? Doesn't that sound perverse to you, given that the husband is the Christ (head) of the family? At best, you have only heard one side of a story. At worst, you may be defiling yourself by listening to gossip from Melody.

But you deferred to your child, whom I suspect, as with Adam with Eve, deferred to his "wife." (Already a bad omen.) So you were unwilling to meet with Greg. Hey, if this marriage goes through, you're going to be related anyway. Wouldn't it be more logical to meet now rather than later? You can't advise your son about the marriage after the marriage. Don't you care?

Greg told me in passing how he had found your phone number on the web under your wife's name. From that, I was able to find your address on my own. I've not told him I'm writing you. He might even be upset I'm writing. But unless he hears about it in a negative way (unfortunately, there's been a lot of "misinformation" (gossip = sin) going around), I don't plan to share this with him unless he needs to see the raw data for himself.]

Up until two years ago, the Bodines had been the perfect Christian family. As you probably know, Greg has 7 children. (Although we're concerned lately that a few might commit suicide over this divorce and other sin.) Until recently, all have been home schooled by BOTH parents. [Against Greg's wishes, Melody recently invoked the civil authorities (contrary to 1 Cor 6:6) to put the youngsters in school.] I wasn't raised in a Christian home, so their family life was out of my experience. It sounds strange to say this about a family with 7 kids, but it was always relaxing and enjoyable for me to visit the Bodines.

They were gracious enough to have me overnight many times at their house(s) over the many years. (I'm a starving missionary type. Single man, never been married.) I saw the kids grow up. I saw new kids born into the family. We used to "house church" together. I would often drive an hour to pray with Greg for an evening. We would do family prayer time together. I used to joke with Melody, asking if she had a sister I could marry. But about 4 years ago, Greg asked me to pray for him and Melody about their marriage. That was about the last time I stayed with them. (The last time I saw them was here in Phoenix at Sarah's high school (equivalent) graduation, maybe 3 or 4 years ago.)

About a year ago, Melody snapped. Whether spiritual, physiological, mental, demonic or all of the above, she has become a different woman. To paraphrase Jesus, "we never knew her." She's like an unbeliever. She has since spurned all her friends who tried to rebuke her, and even those who haven't. (Me, for simply showing up in the courtroom to watch and pray.) Whereas Greg has remained consistent and true to the faith. While I don't think Greg is blameless in all of this, unlike Melody, he has confessed many sins, and genuinely seems to have repented of them. He has grown, whereas Melody has shriveled. I have been to his rental house a few times now and seen him interact with the younger children. Of course, I don't expect you to believe me. But would you believe their son, Josh?

I hope I'm not breaking a confidence, but here's a clip from an email to me from Josh. Josh is Greg's 2nd oldest. While he "sees" the problem, he is in denial, defending his mom. He wrote:

> I can only guess what my Dad has told you, but somehow you and MANY of our family
>friends have come to the conclusion that the reason for hostilities between my dad and my
>siblings and myself is that my mom has turned us against him.

Yes, that's exactly right. It has little to do with what Greg has told us, and more to do with what family friends have observed. Again, many have tried to rebuke Melody but have been spurned and rebuffed. It would be safe to say, based on the courtroom gallery, that, not just many, as Josh said, but a majority of the family friends believe Melody to be in grievous sin. [That the children are often poisoned by their mom and in a divorce and Josh is defending her is typical. I've included a CD with an audio clip from Rush Limbaugh observing this, when the Alec Baldwin telephone voice mail to his daughter was in the news.]

I'll get to Sarah in a moment, since she is what this is mostly about. But like mother, like daughter? You've probably heard the old saying that if you want to know what your wife will turn out like in 50 years, look at her mother. Let me say again that I'm surprised you have only talked with Melody and have rejected her head. Isn't that a perversion of what God has ordained? Besides, how do you know she's telling you the truth? May I remind you of Proverbs 18:17, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." How do you know she's a believer? How do you know she's not an adulteress? That is a common reason a spouse divorces, you know, and we should consider it. Naturally, she's not going to tell us. How do you know she's not an axe murderer? (Okay, she's not an axe murderer. An extreme example, to make a point. Although, seriously, many of us are very concerned that she doesn't go Andrea Yates on the children. We've been praying for protection of the children. If you had been in court, you would have seen for yourself that Melody is paranoid delusional. Even her son Josh sees she is unstable and is worried that she might take her life.)

Are you going to yoke yourself with her and condone this wedding? Wouldn't that be suborning sin? Will God bless this marriage? Now, let me focus on Sarah.

Sarah has, up until recently, been a charming girl. She always carried herself well, and was fun to talk with at the dinner table. (How many kids do you know have read Plato?) That has all changed since her mom started the divorce process against her dad. Sarah has gone horribly carnal.

Look, I'm willing to allow for a little grace here, and allow that Sarah may be "wavering in her faith" during this traumatic time. But we have to be realistic, and consider that maybe she's not a believer at all. It's especially difficult to tell the wheat from the tares when children are raised in a Christian environment, as they may be simply mimicking Christian behavior as opposed to living it. (You know the stereotype of the P.K. or M.K.) Whatever the case, it is clear she is in rebellion. She even cut her hair short, in Britney Spears fashion, this Spring! We need time for things to settle down, to see if she will go back on the straight and narrow.

Sarah used to dress modestly. (As God ordered in the Bible. 1 Timothy 2:9) Not anymore. She now dresses quite worldly. She used to have a gentle and quiet spirit. Not anymore, if the reports from John xxxxxx's children are correct. (The xxxxxx's are assigned guardian of the Bodine children). His children report that Sarah is now using the "f" word in fits of rage, sin according to Ephesians 5:4 and James 1:19. (Please call John to confirm this.) Is this who you want your son marrying?

I'm not into psycho-babble, preferring to see the world God's way, in black or white—you're either walking by the flesh or by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16). But it seems to me that Sarah is rebelling against her father. And in this, poor Ryan, your son, is just a pawn.

You see, Greg believes in Biblical headship. (As do I, per Ephesians 5:23 and following.) He has never condoned dating, but wanted his daughters to court, as was done in this country when we still let God and the Bible in school. Sarah has blown this off. You know the verses in the Bible where the father can overrule a daughter's foolish vow? (Numbers 30:3-5) The implication is he is her head until she leaves and cleaves.

Greg tells me (but you would have to talk to him) that Sarah made a vow to him when she was younger, to the effect that she would seek his permission (as in "giving his daughter's hand in marriage") before getting married. Sarah has blown this off too. As you know, she doesn't even want her father at the wedding. If Greg's report is correct, then Sarah is in sin in this. How do you expect God will bless this marriage to your son?

From a psycho-babble perspective, I suspect that Sarah is using this whole marriage thing to run away from the trauma of her mom's divorce. Making marriage preparations, and even getting married itself, can be a wonderful distraction when your world is crumbling around you. I suspect she'll get pregnant quickly, and further distract herself for a few years after the honeymoon is over. But she was raised believing the man is the head of the family. While she's clearly wearing the pants now, it may be years from know she realizes that Ryan is not what she wanted in a husband. (They say girls marry their fathers.)

It seems to me, although I do not know for a fact, that Sarah is marrying the first boy she's ever dated. While I suppose there's Biblical precedent for marrying the first one you meet (Isaac with Rebecca) God's hand was clearly in that. God's hand cannot be in this. (How can it be that many of us are praying God would postpone this wedding, whereas others are praying the opposite? Are we not to be of one mind?) This is all very hasty. Sarah is not herself. What's needed is time.

You may say that the church is sanctioning all this (despite the father's wishes? Isn't that usurping headship authority?) and so this must be okay. Again, you don't know both sides. May I suggest to you that David Knight is the quintessential man the Apostle Paul warns us about in 2 Timothy 3:6 who has been rejected by God? (This is my personal conclusion, no one else's, based on raw data.)

... having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who WORM their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.

This is exactly what Mr. Knight has done and this verse explains a lot of things. The puzzle fits. If you could have seen Melody testify at trial, it was obvious she is loaded down with sin. You should talk to Mr. xxxxxx, a former elder in the house church we all used to attend. He has written a strong letter to the church leadership, condemning their sin. If I'm correct in my discernment, then a wolf in sheep's clothing is leading your son down a bad path.

Okay, I'm done. As when I warn Mormons, I don't really expect you'll act at this late date. And it seems, from what little I've heard, that you're content to wash your hands of all this and defer to your son. Fine. My hands are clean. I've fulfilled my watchman duty. If there is a divorce or heart ache in the future, that "blood" will be on your head.

I obviously won't be at the wedding. Even if I had been invited, I could not condone this godless union. I don't know if the "preacher" still asks this during the ceremony, but if he asks, "If anyone knows why these two should not be married, let him speak now or forever hold his piece," what will you do? They are not ready for marriage today. Maybe some other time. But not now. The loving thing to do would be to tell your son to wait.

Sorry to have to be so blunt. Love is often like that. Feel free to call.

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ."